Refuting the Same Tired Arguments for Evolution

As I travel around the country presenting seminars about creation and evolution, I am constantly reminded that “evidence” for evolution, which has been proven to be false for decades, is still used on a regular basis to push the false theory. I was recently impressed, once again, by this fact during a recent trip to Soddy Daisy, Tennessee. While I was there, I presented one of my usual lectures in which I show that the use of English Peppered moths and Ernst Haekel’s Law of Embryology have both been shown to be false for several decades now (see Major, 1994a; Harrub, 2001; Harrub, 2003). One would think that very pointed quotations from the highest echalons of the evolutionary community condemning this “evidence” would put a stop to its dissemination among high school and college students. Unfortunately that is not the case.

While talking to one young man who was attending a local college, he mentioned to me that his professor had recently taught the “truth” of evolution using the fake drawings of Ernst Haekel. He asked her, in what sounded like a very respectful tone, if she understood that these drawings had been proven to be false. She said those must have been different drawings and the ones she was showing were accurate. This young man explained that she was still using Haekle’s drawings almost 130 years after they had been shown to be false.

In a similar incident, during the same weekend seminar, a young man who was in high school, I believe, said that his teacher had recently used the English Peppered moths to show how natural selection works. He explained that the students were asked to play a computer simulation game that showed the value of this example of evidence for natural selection.

In addition, I also received from an attendee a copy of a Reader’s Digest article that appeared in the March, 2012 issue. The article, written by Robert Gonzales, was titled, “Five Body Parts You May Not Need.” Gonzales used the idea of vestigial organs to insist that humans once had “primate ancestors.” The vestigial organ argument has been trounced so badly for decades that to call it an argument is being overly generous to the idea (see Bergman and Howe, 1990; Lyons, 2008; Major, 1994b).

It never ceases to amaze me that the evolutionary scientific community that boasts so loudly of objectivity and self-correction refuses to jettison “evidence” which has been disproven for decades. As tiresome as it is, we must continue to point out the falsity of this “evidence” falsely so called. Would to God that the scientific community would heed the words of the apostle Paul and test all things and hold fast to the things which are good (1 Thessalonians 5:21). While the evolutionary scientific community has certainly got the “holding fast” part down, it has completed rejected the admonition to make sure what is retained is “good.”

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.